September 7, 2010

Relax, they've figured out a female-favoring reason why couples with daughters are more likely to divorce than couples with sons. The old explanation that fathers prefer boys must give way to the new explanation: With a daughter at home, being good and supportive as daughters tend to be, a woman has less need for a husband. There, now, aren't you so much happier? The universe makes sense. Women, good. Men, bad.

100 comments:

I have a son who's five and, young as he is, I can't imagine raising him without a dad. The results of spending time with his father are unquestionably valuable, and positively affect every aspect of his happiness and confidence. And he also gets tons of experiences and skills that he just wouldn't get from me: doing guy stuff and talking about guy things, reading guy books and watching guy TV shows.

And guess what? The same applies for my daughter. The popular wisdom that fathers are "optional" is sad and sick. I feel terrible for boys and/or girls growing up without dads.

My daughter-in-law Heidi is the oldest of three daughters in her family (and yes, her parents are still married). Both times when Heidi was pregnant with our grandchildren, she hoped for sons instead of daughters. She said, "Girls are too much drama."

Fortunately, she gave birth to two boys.

Perhaps the girls = drama aspect is a factor, or perhaps this is yet another case where "correlation does not prove causality" holds true.

I have two son (oldest and youngest) with two daughters in between. I was raised in a family of all boys. I will admit that some of the things involved with raising girls (mine are 6 and 2) kind of wierds me out, but that's what mom is for. Likewise, there are things about boys that I'll have to step up to the plate for.

I see no reason, though, why I would split over those things indicative to gender. It's a ridiculous observation more than likely made by someone with plenty of time to do research due to a lack of having a family of their own.

My experience have been that fathers dote on their daughters and mothers on their sons, while being quite sceptical of offspring of their own sex.

I have seen this as well. I would be interested to see if families were more harmonious with mixed gender children (ie, a boy and a girl) or with single gender children. I have a brother, not a sister, and from what I've seen of sisters, they are a lot of drama. There are benefits, too, but still. Brothers are more peaceful (caveat, until they get married and bring in SIL's!)

knox is absolutely right. And I say this as the mother of both a son and a daughter whose father is unfortunately gone a good half of the time.

Five percent doesn't sound like a huge variance, but given that couples with only daughters must be proportionally quite a bit less than couples with sons and daughters and couples with only sons, I wonder what the actual variance is.

I'm not convinced about the more expensive part, although that may dovetail with what I was going to say.

Girls are more complicated. That's not a good thing from a man's point of view. All the old stand-up stand-by's about a man just wanting peace and quite, the archtypical male advice to other men to just agree with the (again to promote peace and harmony) and the old schtick:

Woman: What are you thinking about?Man: (internally) Am I hungry? Am I horny? No? (externally) Nothing.

...has some truth, as most good comedy does.

Dealing with the little drama queens, as well as all the boys/young men/pigs that will inevitably start to prey on them is not something your average man looks forward to, but rather puts up with. BUT YOU DO because you are a responsible, loving father. Period.

I was going to say that it won't happen until the first gay president, but then it struck me. Can't you just hear the news media touting the first lesbian woman black president? Hopefully we'll have done away with identity politics by then...it would be the greatest gift we could give to our kids.

Back to the original point, the first president to get divorced while in office will be a gay man. This goes along with my long-held belief that the worst thing to ever happen to gay men is the gay man.

My guess for the difference in divorce rates would be that since women initiate 2/3 of divorces, the answer more likely lies in women's motivations...and would expect that women with son's are somewhat reluctant to divorce, knowing that they may not be able to control a son themselves, and that there may be some women who divorce to protect a daughter from abuse.

We aren't supposed to mention that adolescents are insane. Girls can be especially hard, but boys aren't any big treat.

But the left's degradation of the family, and its complete dissolution among blacks, has been nearly a complete success. So just when the going gets tough, parents bolt. And why not? There's no consequence for it.

ok, antecdote is not data but my experience differs. Ex-wife's track record is marriage #1 - divorce with no kids, marriage #2 (me) - have a son and get a divorce, marriage #3 - have a daughter and still married. Ex-SO had three daughters but stayed married until they were grown.

And I'll second the opinion that in general men stay. Period. Regardless of the sex of the children, if any.

First, most women cannot successfully raise boys. Which is why most of the guys in prison were not raised with their father in the house.

Secondly, a woman may not get her son in a divorce, but will assuredly get her daughter, if she makes even a token attempt to do so. One the one hand, the statistics are clear about single mothers trying to raise boys. On the other, (and absent any hard statistics), the courts, social workers, etc. invariably decide that girls need their mothers.

I have a daughter, now 24. I could not see raising her without her father, my husband. He gave her his perspective on life and school and education that was somewhat different from my experiences and invaluable to her. They love each other, though sometimes communication is "interesting". I adore her and, though she is 3000 miles away, feel as close to her as when she was living at home.

Having been one of the victims of my mother in her divorce schemes, I have to agree with the article. My mom definitely manipulated me into providing emotional support for her post-divorce, not to mention the fact that she didn't cook a meal, wash a dish, do the laundry or clean the house from the time I was 13 until I left for college. So yes, a woman bent on divorcing her husband can easily convince herself that "my daughter and I will do this together - we're a team".

Huh. As a dad with two daughters (5 and 6) my first response is that maybe it's not the moms deciding they don't need the dads, but the dads deciding they can't deal with the drama.

I love my daughters, but I have already mentioned to my wife that when they're teenagers I may be spending an inordinate amount of time in my man-den.

With the door locked.

And the television up loud so I won't hear all three of them screaming at each other.

I have no intention of bailing out, but I already get a sense that it's gonna be ugly.________

Why are you already giving in? Why not establish some rituals NOW, and (key) insist that they stay in place until they are at least 20? Rituals that allow you ALL to spend time together and that allow you to become blissfully unaware of mini dramas in each of your lives? Like, cooking together? Studying together? Singing together? Gardening together? Working together? Set a pattern to your day that you must follow. Sure, it takes discipline but wouldn't it be worth a future where you're not going deaf by the loud television?

I don't know. I don't get it. Sorry. I guess I'm just in a mood. (Women)

Cherchez la femme. The power of coming into their sexual prime of the 16 to 23 year old daughters can blow up many stable relationships. The daughters are destined to leave and reproduce. The sons are not able to as yet until they have employment. Also the mothers are often times secretly envious enough of the daughter to want to go out and show that they can still compete for men's attention too.

I just think women are crueler than men. I'm not saying men can't be dogs but, when that happens in the sphere of "normal", we know they're fucked up.

Women, on the other hand, exhibit something else in the sphere of "normal": That Praying Mantis thing. That I've-got-too-many-puppies-so-I'll-ruthlessly-kill-one thing. That I'm-dissatisfied-by-I-don't-know-what-so-I'll-leave-my-husband-with-nothing thing.

I suspect you'll find boys more likely to kill a puppy for any reason than girls. Now if you're talking about a 13 year old betty destroying susie because she got on her nerves one day, than I'll agree with that. Boys are more forgiving, less devious in that respect (mostly).

My guess for the difference in divorce rates would be that since women initiate 2/3 of divorces, the answer more likely lies in women's motivations...and would expect that women with son's are somewhat reluctant to divorce, knowing that they may not be able to control a son themselves...

I like this. I gave up my career to remain near my 3 year old son when my wife left. Two years later they still don't get along very well, but it has improved.

In my humble experience, unlike 50 years ago and a larger nuclear family, many mothers are harried by boyhood behavior.

Why are you already giving in? Why not establish some rituals NOW, and (key) insist that they stay in place until they are at least 20? Rituals that allow you ALL to spend time together and that allow you to become blissfully unaware of mini dramas in each of your lives? Like, cooking together? Studying together? Singing together? Gardening together? Working together? Set a pattern to your day that you must follow. Sure, it takes discipline but wouldn't it be worth a future where you're not going deaf by the loud television?

It was sort of a joke. But at the same time a recognition of that the drama happens even now when there are a pair of 5 and 6-year-old women in the house.

Of course, it's hard for you (or anyone) to judge my fathering skills by just one quick off-the-cuff comment about the screaming fits that I fully expect to happen when my kids are teenagers. Which is why I joke about it with my wife now, because she totally expects it, too.

You're free to presume I'm a horribly uninvolved father. That would be completely untrue, however, since I was the awesome, feminist-approved, stay-at-home (work-from-home) dad for the last five years.

And I was absolutely sexy at it. Especially when one of the girls would stick a pink ribbon in my hair, and I went out in public without realizing I'd forgotten to remove it.

My take on it....why women with girls get more divorces than women with boys.

Some women, a lot of women, just can't figure out how to get along with men/males. They can't stop being annoying and demanding 'girls'.

Those women who get along with men and have less touchy, feeley, self centered, I have to find myself attitudes and just suck it up and deal with life, are more likely to stay married because the little shit that people men/boys and even other women do are not that important.

Some women, a lot of women, just can't figure out how to get along with men/males. They can't stop being annoying and demanding 'girls'.

I agree with this. Within a year of my daughter deciding to get married (about 5 years earlier than her mother had "planned"), my ex bailed .... she dreaded being stuck "in a house full of boys" was one (of many) of her 'explanations'.

There's something incredibly special about a father-daughter relationship. At least there is if you are a traditional daughter and had a traditional father. My dad and mom raised two girls and a boy, and never once did I hear either of them complain about drama, real or imagined from me or my sister.

I can't imagine having had better parents, and my father, well, if every kid--boy or girl--had a father like mine, this country would be a far, far better place.

"I have visions of my little brothers friends smashing caterpillers in front of me as a child and grinning with delight!"

That's not the same thing as killing your own, or abandoning your loved ones, or those who've sacrificed for you. The fact you don't understand that - and use the killing of insects to condemn your brother's friends - speaks volumes.

"Women suck. We are evil and want to crush all men. Men are perfect in every way."

That's even more crazy fem talk. What you are is fault-finding imperfect beings yourself, who wouldn't appreciate another human being's sacrifice if it was accompanied by a billion I love you's daily (which my ex got) and all the money in the world.

Speaking of offspring, I have a question. What would a fair monthly food budget be for a male college student living in off campus housing (ie an apartment) be? Let's just say in Madison as a for instance. I'm doing some budgeting.

Doesn't quite explain why my 14 year old daughter moved in with me 3 months ago and refuses to spend a single night with her psycho bitch mother.

My 17 year old son has lived with me full-time since we separated when he was 5 and will spend 1-2 nights a month with his mother. His mother tends to treat her sons better but still no where close to good. My oldest son is 21 and has lived on his own since graduating high school.

Depends on whether he's going out to eat or not. A single man can live on very little. I can easily live on $25/week for food. If you want him to be able to eat out, or not have to cook everything, send more.

Also, there are dates and group outings and so on. That stuff is important, too.

Depends on whether your son has any cooking skills. If he is going to eat out exclusively at fast food places it can be expensive sometimes. However, inexpensive fast food $1.00 hamburgers. Egg McMuffins (which I love but wouldn't want everyday) can be cheap but really unhealthy in the long run.

Top Ramen is the college student's best friend.

But off the cuff.... I would say $125 to $150. Not counting beer, of course :-D

On the topic of women/divorce/female children vs male children. I think the sickest thing I've seen is the woman who gets a divorce and then treats her daughter as a 'girlfriend' and confidant. Sucking her daughter into a crippled adult relationship where the child has no business being involved or need to be aware of the dynamics of a failed marriage.

These women have no idea how to deal with boys/men/males and are using their daughters as a crutch because inside, they are hollow sub adults themselves. Cruel cruel cruel.....not to mention selfish.

Again, my contention is that (generally) that women who have sons are more able to deal with male-female relationships in general, than those who have only daughters and use those daughters as mirrors of themselves.

Mothers are almost twice as likely to be directly involved in child maltreatment as fathers.

Not a surprise, or at least it shouldn't be; as the article itself points out, you're going to see more incidents with the parent who's also around the kids most - and if the role (and burdens) of parenting isn't shared by a mother and father, but is taken over entirely or almost entirely by the mother you'll see more cases... (or there's the presence of a boyfriend/stepfather, who statistically are more likely to perpetrate abuse than the natural father).

DBQ said: I think the sickest thing I've seen is the woman who gets a divorce and then treats her daughter as a 'girlfriend' and confidant. Sucking her daughter into a crippled adult relationship where the child has no business being involved or need to be aware of the dynamics of a failed marriage.

I agree that that is bad, but I've noticed that single women with sons (and sometimes even married women who aren't happy with their husbands who have sons) tend to turn them into surrogate husbands. They expect, and the son feels obligated to offer, a level of support and protection that a woman should be getting from a husband. Once a woman has her young teen son believing that she relies on him, rather than the other way around, there's no chance of establishing discipline, boundaries, or any meaningful use of the word "no."

@HT -- I think the budget should also include where your son will be shopping. You *can* use the bus routes in Madison to get to food shop, but it's terribly inconvenient. If he has a car, then he can get to Woodmans' (East, not West, 'cause East has lower prices) to buy cheap staples, and then go to Sentry in Hilldale, which I find has the best produce.

If he has a way of getting out of downtown, I'd say $200/month would be generous. Maybe he should send you receipts for a couple weeks so you can see what kind of totals he's ringing up.

I find it interesting that a large conversation has ensued from a "fact" that may be no more than statistical variation and a "theory" (read "speculation") that apparently has no solid research behind it.

I agree that that is bad, but I've noticed that single women with sons (and sometimes even married women who aren't happy with their husbands who have sons) tend to turn them into surrogate husbands

I agree. Both situations are bad.

This is why children need BOTH functional role models. Male and female. Functional as opposed to dysfunctional.

Unfortunately, we are mostly reflections of our early upbringing and role models. If you have dysfunctional and distorted family dynamics, that is how you will (unconsciously) raise your own children and the circle goes on.

I certainly don't want to deny anyone their 'rights', but the reality is that we won't know the results of the experiment of raising children without the traditional and (I believe) biologically necessary role models for a generation or two. By then....it will be too late.

Similarly, the "good intentions" of creating a welfare program, has created a welfare lifestyle and destroyed the family structure of inner city blacks and others who know are permanent dependants of government largesse.

The results have been disastrous for the people and disastrous for society, and I doubt that the results can ever be reversed.

Sometimes the good of society and the continuation of future generations should trump feel good mythological rights.

Absolutely, DBQ. Which makes me wonder, though, what about gay couples parenting? My theory would be that they are still much better than a single parent, because at least the child gets good interaction with two different people, and because they are less likely to create the types of weird role-blurring that we have been discussing.

But, on the other hand, I still suspect that, even with biological considerations aside, two opposite sex parents are important to a child. The sexes are different, they have legitimate differences, and I don't think that we can deny the associated experiences of having both sexes as parents to a child and expect that to be just fine. (I'm well aware that there is research that disputes my suspicion here, but I don't trust it. 1) It's too soon in the grand experiment of these sorts of families to draw solid evidence, and 2) I suspect that most of the researchers really want a certain conclusion. Time will tell, I suppose.)

I am a mother of three daughters who unfortunately married and made children with a narcissistic jerk. My three girls have remained extremely close to me throughout the divorce process and have grown even further away from their father. Not what I wanted for them, but sometimes life works out that way.

"My experience have been that fathers dote on their daughters and mothers on their sons, while being quite sceptical of offspring of their own sex.

I have seen this as well."

Strictly anecdotally as well, in my experience, the children favor their opposite-sex parent during the younger years (at least) as much or moreso than their parents favor their opposite-sex children. Skepticism has nothing to do with it on that side of the relationship.